"Court of Appeal Upholds John Kenney's Murder Conviction" by News Blog

News Blog

Court of Appeal Upholds John Kenney's Murder Conviction

April 17, 2012

The neighbor dispute that simmered for years before ending in deadly gunfire left one survivor who will spend the rest of his life in prison.

John Kenney, known to friends as "Jack," was sentenced in 2008 to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was convicted for the slaying of Mel and Elizabeth Grimes, who were each shot twice. They were Kenney's next-door neighbors in Carmel Valley.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal Tuesday issued a decision upholding Monterey County Superior Court Judge Stephen Sillman's sentence, with only a minor modification to the restitution Kenney was fined, trimming it from $30,000 to $10,000.

Kenney and his attorney, Oakland-based Kyle Gee, argued in his appeal that Kenney fired in self defense. Elizabeth Grimes had approached his house while her husband, Mel, had taken a sledgehammer to a large boulder Kenney had delivered to a disputed patch of land between their homes earlier that day.

He also argued the court failed to adequately explain self-defense laws to the jury, and that the court incorrectly admitted a DVD called First and Finishas evidence.

The appellate court found no merit to the self-defense argument and upheld the jury's interpretation. "…A reasonable jury could have inferred from the evidence that defendant provoked a fight with the Grimeses with the intent to create an excuse to use force," the decision states. "[Kenney] expected the Grimeses to react with physical force against him due to his placing the boulder on the disputed property; and [he] had a gun in his belt when he approached the Grimeses for the first time after placing the boulder."

Gee argued First and Finish, an instructive video on action versus reaction, prejudiced the jury against Kenney. "The effect of the evidence—and indeed its intended effect—was to convince the jury that [Kenney] was a dangerous old gunslinger obsessed with firearms and violent defense," Gee said, according to court documents. "The prejudicial effect was acute."

The Court of Appeal upheld the admission of the DVD as evidence, along with the conviction and sentencing.

The jury never even considered the property dispute. Before the trial began, the attorneys agreed not to bring it up, instead offering up jurors this background: "The Grimes believed they had an easement or right to access their carport across the defendant’s property. In this case, who was actually right about this property dispute is not necessary for the jury to decide, and therefore, that issue is not for you, the jurors, to determine.”

It seems fairly obvious to me. The smart Court Lawyer is always setting up evidence for winning in Court. There is a court case against him and his arrogant wife. He and his wife constitute two witnesses. If, with the evidence of a 911 call, if they could make it sound 'just right', they could discredit their elderly neighbour's case of assault. They may have even had an unrecorded conversation that day to plan beforehand the 'collection of evidence'. He was one smart criminal lawyer, used to winning his cases. The Grimeses both knew that the 911 call was recording. they would be very conscious of trying to make that tape seem to incriminate Kenney. After she went up to entice Dr Kenney out into a confrontation, her words & screams could be planned. Mrs. Grimes attacked first. They didn't plan on Dr. Kenney having a gun to defend himself. Shouting, "He has a gun" would be creating great evidence, but Grimes miscalculated when he attacked with the sledge! He probably assumed that the timid old codger next door wouldn't have a loaded gun. Big mistake! He got one strike in, probably because his wife was attacking Kenney from behind. A 70+ old man being attacked by two younger people - one with a sledgehammer? If he hadn't fired he'd have been knocked down and possibly killed or seriously injured. Then that lawyer would win his case by double testimony, backed up by their seeded 911 call. Quite a cunning scheme. Damned cunning these lawyers, eh? Then of course the judge of the case, who was an aquaintance of the Grimes couple, would not allow the case to be tried elsewhere. Masons stick together don't they? But that is just speculative supposition, so we'll delete that from the court records in case there is an investigation into that 'old boys club'. All Lawyers are not necessarily masons, so we won't go there. Anyhow, America is going to the dogs when a man cannot defend himself against deadly assault without becoming a victim of old boy collusion. Kenney asked a police officer to be there when the Grimeses arrived. My, what a coincidence that the Grimeses arrived in separate cars at the same moment. That did allow them to collude in secretly calling 911 and confronting the neighbour. If Kenney had intended to harm he wouldn't have wanted a police officer there. Dr. Kenney no doubt assumed that the Grimeses would back down when he produced a firearm. Big mistake, Dr Kenney. They just pressed in, assuming they'd all end up in court and the gun would be extra evidence to bring against their neighbour. Attacking a man who had a gun was a really wrong move. It is also illegal and gave the armed individual the right to defend himself. Kenney should have been upheld as innocent in this case. Long ago, when America was a fair and equitable nation, he would have been acquitted. Y'see I used to study Law. But, American Justice? Ha! That's dead in the water!

Even in the 911 call, Kenney was looking to not get in trouble. He didn't even mentioned that he had shot 2 people. What a waste of skin! He was a murderer, a liar and a control freak. He needs to die in prison.

Decades ago Jack Kenney threatened me with a law suit and bodily harm after I was listed as a witness in a case concerning professional fees that either were or were not due to him. I had nothing to gain in the matter but had been a witness to a relevant conversation. He was a violent person. The jury got it right.